DEVELOPING PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTION

Richa Nurila
Sausan Nafis Amin

English Education Department of Graduate Program

State Islamic Institute of Tulungagung

Introduction

In linguistics, pragmatic competence is the ability to use language effectively in a

contextually appropriate fashion. Pragmatic competence is a fundamental aspect of a more
general communicative competence. The term was introduced by sociolinguist Jenny
Thomas in a 1983 Applied Linguistics article, "Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure, in which
she defined it as "the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific
purpose and to understand a language in context."

As an English teacher to be or a person who is involved in English teaching practices,

there is awareness and understanding that pragmatics and language teaching seem cannot
be separated. Both of them own the same basic point, which is related to communication.
Pragmatic is supposed to become an integrated part within language teaching since
language does not consist merely of letters, words, sentences, sounds, and structure. It has
meaning, it carries out the meaning, and it delivers meaning that becomes a base of a
communication. Meaning itself is not merely built or developed through words or
sentences, but context as well. In teaching English, a teacher then should be aware of the
importance of implementing his or her knowledge of pragmatic in classroom.

The approach of English language teaching in Indonesia has shifted from traditional
approach into communicative approach. Traditional approach which emphasizes
knowledge of grammar translation, the linguistic acquisition knowledge (vocabulary,
pronunciation, and syntax) is considered as partly required knowledge of language usage.
The most important knowledge to be taught to students is the rules to use language for
communication. Students are demanded to own the communication skills that can support
them as the part of the society. Not only in the classroom, should students also be able to
communicate effectively with language outside classroom or the real world. Therefore,
English teaching is supposed to have the main role to carry out the main purpose of
language teaching which is to develop students’ communicative competence. One way can
be done is to integrate English language teaching and pragmatics in the classroom. Teacher
is required then to own pragmatic knowledge and competence in teaching English to his or
her students.

1. Pragmatic competence defined and characterized

Since Dell Hymes (1972) coined the term communicative competence to refer to
our knowledge of language in reaction to Noam Chomsky‘s restricted notion of linguistic
competence, many attempts have been made to identify and characterize the components of
communicative competence (Canale and Swain, 1980, Bachman, 1990, Celce-Murcia et al.,
1995). In all these attempts, pragmatic competence has always been identified as a major
component of communicative competence, albeit under different components: Hymes'
sociolinguistic competence, Canale and Swain‘s sociolinguistic competence, Bachman's
pragmatic competence, and Celce-Murcia et al's actional competence. A comparison of
these models of communicative competence is beyond the scope of this paper. However,
such a comparison is now available in many sources (see for example Celce-Murcia et al.,
1995 and Jorda, 2005).

Indeed, the voluminous literature on teaching different aspects of pragmatic

competence teems with such comparisons of different models of communicative
competence. Hymes' sociolinguistic competence refers to the ability to use forms
appropriately in social situations; something which was excluded by Chomsky's distinction
between competence and performance. Canale and Swain's sociolinguistic competence is
similar to that of Hymes. They expanded the notion of communicative competence to
include discourse competence and strategic competence. Bachman (1990) grouped
linguistic competence and discourse competence (textual competence) together under one
category she called organizational competence. She identified pragmatic competence as the
second major component of communicative competence defined as the knowledge of the
components that enable us to relate words and utterances to their meanings, the intentions
of language users and relevant characteristics of the language use contexts. To Bachman,
pragmatic competence consists of: (a) Lexical knowledge— the knowledge of the meanings
of words and the ability to use figurative language; (b) Functional knowledge—the
knowledge of the relationships between utterances and the intentions/ communicative
purposes of language users; and (c) Sociolinguistic knowledge refers to knowledge of the
relevant characteristics of social contexts in which those utterances are used. In Celce-
Murcia et al.'s (1995) model of communicative competence an attempt is made to show
how the different components of communicative competence are related. Pragmatic
competence is defined as knowledge of language functions that are classified in such a way
that reminds us of the persistent problem of classifying speech acts in a systematic way, and
one that was attempted by both Austin and Searle a long time ago.

There are many definitions of Pragmatics as a branch of linguistics. For example,

Levinson (1983) devotes a whole chapter to this issue reviewing a lot of definitions. Yule
(1996) defines it as the study of those aspects of utterance meaning that are determined by
the social contexts in which they occur. Given the multitude of topics often dealt with in the
literature of pragmatics, he argues that, at that time at least, it looked like the wastepaper
basket of linguistics. Rose and Kasper (2003) define pragmatics as:

“the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context.

Communicative action includes not only using speech acts (such as apologizing,
complaining, complimenting, and requesting), but also engaging in different types
of discourse and participating in speech events of varying length and complexity
(p.2)."
 In addition, Leech and many other leading figures in Pragmatics identify two
components of pragmatic competence: Pragma linguistics and Socio pragmatics. The
former refers to the ability to make appropriate choices from a large range of linguistic
forms and pragmatic strategies such as directness/indirectness and routines in the
realization of communicative acts. The latter refers to the social assumptions or principles
underlying participants‘ interpretation and performance of communicative acts. As such,
Sociopragmatics is essentially about appropriate social behavior in a certain speech
community. In addition, the study of L2 learners‘ pragmatic knowledge is known as
Interlanguage Pragmatics. Jorda (2005) points out that:

“Interlanguage pragmatics is a relatively new subfield within the second

language acquisition research area. It is concerned with the pragmatic competence
and performance of second and foreign language learners; thus, studies in this field
focus on the non-native speaker‘s use and acquisition of pragmatic knowledge
in/of the target language (p.64).‖

Eun and Tadayoushi (2006) sum up the development of research in Interlanguage

Pragmatics (ILP). The earliest Interlanguage Studies focused mainly on what Cohen (1998)
calls Contrastive Pragmatics. Pragmatic intuitions and performance of different groups of
second/foreign language learners having specific first language backgrounds were
described and compared with those of Native Speakers. Gradually, the scope of
Interlanguage Pragmatics has become broader to include developmental studies (i.e. studies
focusing on the development of learners' interlanguage competence). More recently,
researchers have also started to the investigate classroom instruction of pragmatic
knowledge. This, then, is the focus of this paper.

2. Recommendations related to ELT materials

Given the limitations of input available in textbooks as indicated by the research

referred to above and the perceptions of Omani teachers related to this dimension, it might
be argued that new sources of ELT materials for teaching pragmatics should be produced.
Several available resources are mentioned in the literature. For example, the Center for
Advanced Research on Language Acquisition (CARLA) has three websites dedicated to L2
pragmatics: A general one; one focusing on Japanese; and a third one focusing on Spanish
(Cohen, 2008). Cohen also points out that there are many sites for both teachers and
learners to learn pragmatic knowledge independently. Almost all classroom pragmatics
instruction studies can provide useful materials for teaching as well as testing pragmatics.
One of the most interesting open sources consists of thirty lessons collected by Bardovi-
Harlig & Mahan-Taylor (2003). These materials can help English learners use socially
appropriate language in different social situations and cover topics such as conversational
management, opening and closings, requests, refusals, compliments, and complaints. In
addition, Keller and Warmer (1988) provide an excellent source on the use of
conversational gambits. Finally, Belz (2008) provides many other sites in which learners
can interact with other learners from different cultures in what has become known as
Telecollaboration.

3. Recommendations related to testing pragmatic competence

Rover (2004) points out that although pragmatic competence is considered to be a
major component of communicative competence, little attention has been paid to testing it
in the literature. But like task types used in classroom instruction of this component of
knowledge of the target language, teachers can also benefit from tests developed by
researchers of classroom pragmatic development. Rover has already developed and
validated a web-based test battery for testing pragmatic competence that meets two major
criteria in testing: practicality and difficulty. Tada (2005) used video prompts for testing
pragmatic production and awareness. However, the more expensive the test, the less
practical it will be. Developing an adaptive test, means that different items have to identify
different levels of proficiency of the test takers. In the same volume, Cohen (2004) makes
similar and cautious comments about testing pragmatic competence:
 "More recently, the field has evolved such that there are now more rigorous
batteries of instruments for assessing speech act ability. While these batteries have
primarily been used for research purposes, the potential use of portions of such
instruments in language classrooms is"
open for investigation. An important consideration is one of feasibility, since some of the
subtests may be too labor intensive to make them practical for the classroom (p.299).
Given the fact that excluding this aspect of knowledge from final tests will have a
detrimental wash back effect on teaching and learning processes, it including a pragmatic
component in Omani tests should be attempted.

A. The importance of Pragmatics in ELT

In English language teaching, pragmatic is very important because the four
language skills in language learning such as reading writing, listening and speaking do not
occur in isolation in communicative texts or activities. So through forming a good
pragmatic competence for the language learner, the following should be considered.
1. The aims of a language course should be designed to meet the needs of the language
learner to help them improve their communicative competence. Since the primary
goal of learning a second language is to provide fluency and accuracy in written and
spoken modes of ommunication, first, the language teacher and the learner should
notice to design communicative activities which help to develop the Communicative
competence. Stern (1983) summarizes ‘competence’ in language teaching as: The
intuitive mastery of the forms of language, The intuitive mastery of the linguistic,
cognitive, affective and sociocultural meanings, expressed by the language forms,
The capacity to use the language with maximum attention to communication and
minimum attention to form, The creativity of language use. Obviously, the term
competence seeks to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic skills, in order to achieve
complete and a c-curate communication for both teachers and learners.
2. Several activities are helpful for the development of pragmatic competence.
Furthermore, they should raise the learners’ awareness of the importance of such
 competence in the process of acquiring the target language. As Mey (1993)
indicates, “Linguistic behavior is social behavior. People talk because they want to
socialize, in the widest possible sense of the world: either for fun, or to express
themselves to other humans, or for some ‘serious’ purposes, such as building a
house, closing a deal, solving a problem and so on.
3. The language teacher should design the course material to engage learners in the
pragmatic, coherent and functional uses of language for communicative purposes.
As claimed by Erton (1997), “The functional study of language means, studying
how language is used. For example, attempting to discover what the specific aims
that language serves for us and how the members of a language community develop
and react to these goals through speaking, reading, writing and listening.” The
pragmatic competence of the learner must be well developed; consequently he or
she will be able to conduct communication with accuracy. The development of
coherence and the ability to react in different situations demonstrate a good level of
functional competence. The grammar of the target language should not be taught in
isolation with its use. The learned should be able to put his or her knowledge of
language into practice.

Conclusion

Teaching English cannot be separated from involving pragmatic awareness since

they have the same basic point which is related to communication. Teaching
English is not only teaching the grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, and (literal)
meaning. Students have to be taught to develop their pragmatic competencies. As
English teachers, they should start to first aware of the importance of pragmatics
knowledge in teaching English. To develop students’ pragmatic competences,
teachers should start from themselves.
There are many ways that English teachers can do to develop their students’
pragmatic competences. One of them is to provide authentic activities and
materials to accommodate students in experiencing pragmatics. A method
proposed by Brock and Nagasaka (2005), S.U.R.E can be used as a good
reference.